Slashdot Mirror
What are the Real Differences Between Distributions?
toblak asks: "Everybody seems to say the Mandrake is a good distro for newbies and Gentoo, Debian, SUSE, etc, are for the Power Users.
Other than different updating schemes, when you get 'under the hood' of the distribution isn't it basically the same? If I compile some source code on a Debian system don't I get the same functionality as I would if I compiled the same code on a Mandrake system? I've been using Mandrake for about a year and while I don't consider myself a newbie, I'm not a Power User either. Have I been 'missing out' on something by staying with Mandrake?"
Speed. I am running a Gentoo system. The big advantage is that you get new packages pretty quickly. All the code can be compiled specifically for you processor (that's right I have an entire system specifically compiled for my Athon Thunderbird). Gentoo also has a bunch of kernel patches applied (most specifically the preemptible kernel patch and the O(1) scheduler kernel patch). These two do wonders for the responsiveness of a desktop system (don't worry, everyone else will get these when kernel 2.6 is adapted). The big things you lose on Gentoo is the stability and tech support. Don't get me wrong, it can be very stable, but the bigger distributions have a lot more people to check such things. The biggest thing though has to be time. You can spend a lot of time tweaking the settings and it can take a while to get a program (even with a fast internet connection and computer). As someone coming from Mandrake, you will also most miss the graphical setup programs, but you will end up learning a lot more about how the innards of Linux works.
that said, I switched to gentoo about 6 months ago, and I have learned more about linux in those 6 months than all the previous several years combined. the way (I think) most people work with tools like rpm is to just install packages off the cd or rpmfind.net, without ever really looking at what you're doing. when you have to actually compile traceroute, as with gentoo for example, you know much more about your system, its components dependencies, etc.
so, I would say, yes there are differences between distros, and the most important one is the package maneger, whether it be rpm, portage, apt-get, or manually compiling all your apps yourself.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
...is Linux.
Basically, the install and management apps are the only difference as far as the software goes. I'm personally very fond of YaST, mainly because of it's excellent hardware detection, but also because of it's Online Update module, so I use SuSE.
However, the reason I buy SuSE rather than just use the ftp install is the manuals. Of all Linux books I've read, the SuSE manuals are the most useful.
Anyway, aside from the 2 things I list above, I think all the distros are pretty much the same, with the rare exceptions where they include something proprietary, like Lindows includes Crossover Office (IIRC).
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I have urpmi, what am I missing?
mp3: l33t term for empty.
The only project that wouldn't compile out-of-the-box with GCC 2.96 (which is replaced by GCC 3.2 in RH 8.0) was mplayer, and it was because their configure script had a specific check for it (you could bypass the check with a configure option, but then mplayer's developpers wouldn't help you at all with the app). I compiled it (and used it) successfully with various releases of GCC 2.96.
The thing with RPMs is that you can get either the binary package, or the source package. Personnally, I prefer to get the source package, so that I can play with the different compile-time options rather than being stuck with what the packager chose, but that's just me. A lot of people using RH will just download the binary updates for their systems (either automatically or manually) and be done with it.
As for your comments on the kernel (first that RH offers a heavily patched kernel, then Gentoo doing the same thing): installing a vanilla kernel.org kernel is quite easy on RH. Since it's a package that I recompile more often than others, I prefer to not package each of my compilations, and rather just install it the "old" way. It keeps all its stuff together, so it's really easy to track by hand, and the packaging is not important in that case.
Sure, if you do little use of the system and then all source works the same. However, there a major differences.
I've started with Slackware and moved to Debian. I use Redhat at work. What the difference? Simple, Slackware required more work. Confusing it was. However, I actually learned a few things, and I am indebted to Pat Volkerding for putting me through that all. Unfortunately, I killed my system with a bad upgrade to libc6, and I decided that it was time to switch.
I took Debian, simply because they are community-centric. There are tons of choices, but they are all up to you. It handles the basics for you, but lets you know what's happening. As such, it (unstable) keeps me up to date and takes care of basic administration, but I have to do a bit here and there. I like this level, and I like Debian, so I am happy here.
Red Hat takes a different approach. RedHat does things for you. It does much more you than Debian does. This is great for quick starts onto system, or moving from a Microsoft world. However, for those who like to know what's going on, it does a bit too much. Red Hat 8 even went further with making KDE and GNOME desktops looking alike. That is the Red Hat way.
So, generally with Linux the distribution that you choose is a mixture of ease and control. But as one goes up the other goes down. Yes, you *could* force the system to do what you want, but then why not get a distribution that does it for you, and can be updated without breaking anything?
If there were only three distributions, they'd probably be Red Hat, Debian, and Slackware. I've heard this from others as well. If it's true or not is irrelevant. The point is, those who tried them see these three as representing three different approaches to a Linux distribution. I'd suggest trying them all at some point if you doubt their differences.
Have you read my journal today?
I use file-rc.
In Debian.
Gets rid of all that /etc/rc.d/rc{1,2,3,4,5,6}.d crap and replaces it with a single /etc/runlevel.conf file.
REALLY neat stuff. Check it out here.
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.